http://www.mlssoccer.com/news/article/2012/08/08/mls-reveals-new-set-standings-tiebreakers-12-season Nice to get this cleared up and finalized just 65% of the way through the season.
Someone in the FB comments section of that page has a good point: If two teams are even through the first five tie-breakers, it seems impossible for the 6th or 7th to break the tie. I admittedly haven't given it too much thought, but I can't picture a scenario where the 6th or 7th tiebreaker actually breaks the tie. Just to break it down in mathematical terms: Say both teams have scored X total goals. And say both have Y total away goals. Inherently, they'll both have X-Y home goals, so still tied. Likewise, X total goal differential. If both have Y total away goal differential, they'll both have to have have X-Y home goal differential. So rules 6 and 7 seem to be totally irrelevant.
It does not seem right to impose this in the middle of the season. How is it fair to teams that have focused primarily on playing good defense up until now? Oh well, the best strategy is always just to finish ahead of everyone else on points so that none of these ever come into play.
On this rare occasion, I actually agree with this statement and sentiment/complaint. Although, this is a better point, IMO: I'm fine with "winning soccer" (PPG) being the primary and obvious table definer, and "attacking soccer" (GPG) being a heavy secondary focus (as a tie breaker). Although it is strange that Total Goals is somehow prioritized by MLS ahead of GD.
Yes, but who wants a coin flip to be only step 6 in the tie-breaking process? Better to include two meaningless steps and make the coin flip the more reasonable sounding 8th option.
Personally, I would have had #6 be fewer number of PK goals, and #7 be most goals from outside the 18-yard box.
Also, does DisCo action add to the disciplinary points, or is it solely dependent on the cards given out by the referee? I'd kind of find it to be hilarious if, say, LA advances on that particular tiebreaker despite having a number of suspensions added on by the DisCo that didn't get called by the referee. Edit: I can't find a link to it anywhere on MLS's site, but searching for "Disciplinary Points" on the site leads here: http://www.mlssoccer.com/stats/disciplinary-points/2012 Looking at that, the Revs are really wussy, and Montreal and RSL have really embraced the thug life.
According to the full press release, the decision was made earlier this year. They just didn't announce it until now. http://www.prostamerika.com/2012/08/08/goals-scored-to-be-new-mls-tiebreaker/68802
It was listed via here too: http://pressbox.mlssoccer.com/content/competition-rules-and-regulations I've been clamoring for tie-breaker changes for years. I can quibble about what they've chosen -- and I think the bit about the irrelevance of the 6th and 7th tiebreakers might be true (gotta think about that). But the change was absolutely necessary. Now somebody can look at the table and have (almost all) the information they need to determine the order. The only thing that's not on a common table are the disciplinary points, and those are easy to find on the MLS website. Maybe some others will miss working out the head-to-head, two-way, three-way (and four and five-way) tie-breakers, but I'm not among them.
And the Rapids are 13th overall. So does that mean the label of most thuggish team can be moved on to Salt Lake along with all the ex-Rapids they have (they've got another, Ross LaBeaux, on trial right now)? Nor am I.
I agree but I can't understand what purpose would it serve to only announce this now as opposed to when this decision has been made?
honestly . . . probably some intern saying, "hey did we ever publish those new rules?" . . . . . "crap someone get a press release ready."
Most people don't give a @#$@# about tie breakers until towards the end of the season when they are meaningful. Knowing at the start of the season that the if the Revolution and Philly are tied at 6 points, that the Revolution would be ranked higher because they have 3 goals scored compared to Philly's 2 isn't that important.
Its going to suck to be the team that sweeps a team their tied with only to lose the tiebreaker because head-to-head doesn't matter at all. I get not having it as the first tiebreaker, but at all? Its really better to go to a coin flip than to look at the two teams and say "Hey, A beat B more than B beat A, they should win the tiebreaker."?
A few days ago I was thinking about my annual table thread (how that's going to happen now after these new table-unfriendly upgrades I really don't know), and I went over and took a look at the competition guidelines page -- it had the old rules. That's updated now, but as of just a few days ago it was the old stuff. It does make you wonder when the decision really was made.
It's hard to argue for using a head to head tiebreaker this year when teams don't play an equal number of home/away games. Yes, if a team sweeps the series it wouldn't matter, but that would be very rare (so far only San Jose has swept a series, vs RSL). But a 2-1 edge in head to head this year is much more likely and is it fair for the team with two home games to win a tiebreaker like that? That would be the case, for example, with Vancouver vs SJ this year where Vancouver won both home games lost to SJ at SJ.